alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2

                      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

        In connection  with the Annual Report of Nordic American Tanker Shipping
Limited  (the  "Company")  on Form 20-F for the year ended  December 31, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the "SEC") on or about the
date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Turid Sorenson,  Chief Financial  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

     A signed  original  of this  written  statement  has been  provided  to the
Company and will be retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

Date: June 29, 2006

/s/ Turid Sorensen
--------------------
Turid Sorensen
Chief Financial Officer


SK 01318 0002 681624
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Scott
Sullinger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2006
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of NeoMagic Corporation.

Date: September 13, 2006



By:

/s/ Scott SullingerName:

Scott SullingerTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
# C_2019139EN.01006101.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/61

---

Action brought on 30 January 2019 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

(Case T-56/19)

(2019/C 139/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

| — | In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicant;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.

The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicant’s right to property and its right to respect for its reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to its reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which it is entitled to compensation.

The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.

---
Exhibit
10.2


 


November 11, 2009


 


Randy Schrick

100 Commercial St.

Atchison, KS 66002


 


Dear Randy:


 


Please accept this letter as
our mutual understanding of your status with MGP Ingredients, Inc. during
our joint venture at the Pekin, IL facility.


 


·                  The minimum term of your employment would be
through June 30, 2012.


·                  If your position at Pekin does not work to the
joint venture’s satisfaction prior to the above date or a permanent replacement
is hired, you would be reinstated to your October 2009 salary and
corporate position of VP Engineering.


·                  You will continue to participate in the MGPI
executive stock incentive plan, participate in the MEP bonus plan, ESOP and
401k plans, the Health & Dental program, long term care plan, long
term disability plan, and existing base salary.


·                  Moving expenses to the Pekin area will be
provided by MGP Ingredients.


·                  You will have use of the company vehicle while
in Pekin.


 


We look forward to making
this joint venture a tremendous success for all parties involved.


 


 


	
  Sincerely,

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Tim Newkirk

  	
   

  	
  /s/ John Speirs

  
	
  Tim Newkirk

  	
   

  	
  John Speirs

  
	
  CEO and President

  	
   

  	
  Chairman

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Accepted:

  	
  /s/ Randy Schrick

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Randy Schrick
# C_2021338EN.01001901.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Irish Wind Farmers’ Association and Others v Commission

(Case T-680/19) (1)

(State aid - Energy sector - Irish legislation on business property taxation - Method for calculating the amount of the tax owed by fossil fuel electricity producers - Complaint from wind farm operators - Decision finding that there is no State aid - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Procedural rights of the interested parties)

(2021/C 338/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg (Kilkenny, Ireland), Carrons Windfarm Ltd (Shanagolden, Ireland), Foyle Windfarm Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (Bunclody, Ireland) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 5257 final of 9 July 2019 on State aid SA.44671 (2019/NN) — Ireland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 87 

To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor posthumously to Captain Emil Kapaun of the United States Army for acts 

of valor during the Korean War. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. MORAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize and request the President to award the Medal 

of Honor posthumously to Captain Emil Kapaun of the 

United States Army for acts of valor during the Korean 

War. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD 

4 OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO EMIL KAPAUN FOR 

5 ACTS OF VALOR DURING THE KOREAN WAR. 

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Notwithstanding the time lim7 itations specified in section 3744 of title 10, United States 

8 Code, or any other time limitation with respect to the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 87 IS

1 awarding of certain medals to persons who served in the 

2 Armed Forces, the President is authorized and requested 

3 to award the Medal of Honor posthumously under section 

4 3741 of such title to Emil Kapaun for the acts of valor 

5 during the Korean War described in subsection (b). 

6 (b) ACTS OF VALOR DESCRIBED.—The acts of valor 

7 referred to in subsection (a) are the actions of then Cap8 tain Emil Kapaun as a member of the 8th Cavalry Regi9 ment during the Battle of Usan on November 1 and 2, 

10 1950, and while a prisoner of war until his death on May 

11 23, 1951, during the Korean War. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### TAMBLIN et al., Respondents, v. DONELY et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 2, 1907.)

Action by James I. Tamblin and others against Frank Donely and others.

PER CURIAM.

Motion to dismiss appeal as to John F. Donely and Frank Donely denied, with §10 costs and disbursements. Held that, in order to raise on the merits the question here presented, the attorneys for the respondents should have promptly notified the attorney for the appellants that he refused to recognize his notice of appeal for all defendants.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 27 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 220
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 27

 Disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency 
  relating to the mitigation by States of cross-border air pollution 
                        under the Clean Air Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 8, 2011

  Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. Johanns, and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

                            November 3, 2011

  Committee discharged by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and 
                         placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency 
  relating to the mitigation by States of cross-border air pollution 
                        under the Clean Air Act.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted to Congress by the Environmental Protection Agency on 
July 11, 2011, entitled ``Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate 
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP 
Approvals'' (76 Fed. Reg. 48208 (August 8, 2011)), relating to the 
mitigation by States of cross-border air pollution under the Clean Air 
Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and such rule shall have no force or 
effect.

                                                       Calendar No. 220

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 27

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 Disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency 
  relating to the mitigation by States of cross-border air pollution 
                        under the Clean Air Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 3, 2011

  Committee discharged by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and 
                         placed on the calendar
```
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Mary E. Still, Appellant, v County of Dutchess, Department of Parole, et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

—Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 26, 1984, which ruled that claimant did not sustain a causally related disability and denied her claim for benefits.

Claimant was employed as a probation officer with the County of Dutchess, Department of Parole. On December 17, 1982, while preparing for a Christmas party at a site off the premises of her employment, claimant twisted her knee. On January 13, 1983, she made a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The claim was controverted. After a hearing, the Workers’ Compensation Board denied claimant benefits, stating that "claimant’s accident while making preparations for a Christmas party off the employment premises * * * was not an incident of the employment”. This appeal by claimant ensued.

We affirm. Whether a claimant’s injuries arose in the course of employment is a factual question for resolution by the Board, and that resolution must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. In *Matter of Tedesco v General Elec. Co.*
      *845(305 NY 544, 550). The Court of Appeals identified five factors which should be present in order to hold that an injury, sustained under factual circumstances similar to those herein, arose in the course of a claimant’s employment. The factors are: (1) the activities were on the employer’s premises; (2) the employer gave substantial financial support to the activity; (3) the control by the employer over the activity was dominant; (4) the activity benefited the employer by giving it a business advantage; and (5) the employer could halt the program at any time *(supra).*Here, it is uncontroverted that the Christmas party was held away from the employer’s premises and that the employer did not give any financial support for the party. Further, there is no evidence that the employer exercised any control over the event or that it could halt the holding of the party. The only condition laid down by the employer was that any employee attending the off-premises party must first check out and thereby separate himself from his employment.

We conclude that the evidence in this record falls squarely within the ambit of *Matter of Jablonski v General Motors Acceptance Corp.*(22 AD2d 724) and *Matter of Dapp v New York State Liq. Auth.*(50 AD2d 250), wherein we reversed awards of compensation for injuries sustained by employees at social events.

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
# C_2020390EN.01005102.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/51

---

Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-13/19) (1)

(2020/C 390/69)

Language of the case: Czech

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Thiscertification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report ofUTStarcom, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”).

 

Inconnection with the Report, we, Peter Blackmore and Viraj Patel, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| (i)    |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of  section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,  as amended; and     |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| (ii)   |   | The information contained in the Report fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of the Company. |

 

 

Dated:November 7, 2008

 
| By:    | /s/ PETER BLACKMORE                          |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Peter Blackmore                        |   |
|   | Title: Chief Executive Officer and President |   |
|   |                                         |   |
| By:    | /s/ VIRAJ J. PATEL                           |   |
|   | Name: Viraj J. Patel                         |   |
|   | Title: Interim Chief Financial Officer       |   |

 

----
(February 6, 1986)

#### Entertainment Publications, Inc., Appellant-Respondent, v Peter Modroukas et al., Respondents-Appellants.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Irving Kirschenbaum, J.), entered August 1, 1984, which, after a nonjury trial, granted plaintiff judgment against the defendants, *inter alia,*directing specific performance of their contract, dismissing defendants’ counterclaims, holding defendants in contempt, and awarding plaintiff $1,000 in attorney’s fees, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to increase the award of legal costs and expenses to $17,071.41, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We find that plaintiff is entitled to the reasonable value of its legal fees in this action, both pursuant to the provision therefor in the contract between the parties and also pursuant to Judiciary Law § 773 which, *inter alia,*provides for the recovery of such fees where no actual damage has been shown as a result of defendants’ contempt in not obeying the injunction *(see, Ellenberg, v Brach,*88 AD2d 899, 902).

On this record, we believe that the trial court’s award of $1,000 was not commensurate with the legal services necessitated by defendants’ conduct in violating the agreement and the court orders. Accordingly, we modify the judgment to raise the award to $15,000 for legal fees plus $2,071.41 for disbursements.

*509We have examined the other points raised on this appeal and cross appeal and find them without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Fein, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 3, 2013

h0626

Order 

Clerk

July 3, 2013

144783 & (54)

PATRICIA LEVINE, Personal

Representative of the Estate of FREDERICK

H. LEVINE, M.D., Deceased,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/

Appellant,

v SC: 144783

COA: 299639

Berrien CC: 2004-003060-CK

JAMES E. O’DORISIO, M.D.,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/

Appellee.

______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to substitute parties is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the November 17, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals 

is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

REVERSE that part of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that the trial court erred by 

failing to equally divide between the parties the profits from use of the vascular 

laboratory from the date of dissolution to the date of the sale of the laboratory. MCL 

450.4404(5) is not applicable to this case. Instead, the division of the profits of the 

company are governed by the operating agreement, which provides that the PLLC “shall 

be dissolved” upon the occurrence of a withdrawal event. ¶12.1. Thus, the PLLC was 

dissolved on January 13, 2004, when the hospital and the defendant entered their 

memorandum of understanding making the defendant’s loss of staff privileges 

permanent. The value of the PLLC should be assessed as of that date. The defendant is 

not entitled to any profits derived from the plaintiff’s use of the laboratory between 

January 13, 2004, and the date that the laboratory was sold. In all other respects, leave to 

appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 793 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 793

  To allow the Corps of Engineers to use certain amounts to carry out 
                       harbor deepening projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 12, 2011

  Mr. Graham introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To allow the Corps of Engineers to use certain amounts to carry out 
                       harbor deepening projects.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CORPS OF ENGINEERS HARBOR DEEPENING PROJECTS.

    The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
shall prioritize the use of amounts made available to the Secretary for 
General Investigations to carry out harbor deepening projects, 
including harbor deepening projects that are prepared and ready to 
begin first-year feasibility study-related activities.
                                 <all>
```
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D 20 2 3

- 2760 Lower Tribunal No. 202 0

- C F

- 00 1543

- BXXX

- XX

_____________________________ K AEDRYN S TUBBS , Appellant ,
v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County

.

John McGowan , Judge. July 30, 2024
PER CURIAM

. AFFIRMED

. TRAVER , C

. J. , and WHITE, J., and LAMBER T , B.D. Associate Judge , c oncur.

Robert David Malove , of The Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A. , Fort Lauderdale , for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cynthia Richards, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee

.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AN D DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
# C_2021452EN.01004703.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/47

---

Order of the General Court of 7 September 2021 — Stagecoach Group v Commission

(Case T-754/19) (1)

(2021/C 452/62)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---